Supremes Rule In Favor Of Baker

[Silhouette]

That's one solution, but the one I'm trying is just deleting every leftist obscenity/insult poster. The whole world is hunting us for our attention 24/7. Why give it to all these leftwing parasites and predators? They are here for the one purpose of destroying us: but we can get rid of them on our forum feed.

So far, this is working well for me. Feels a bit like the Augean Stables and me the Hercules with the shovel, but little by little it gets more civil.

Tell me about it. I've been hammering on about the false premise (behaviors do not = race) for about 13 years now with 100s of thousands of posts during that time on various political sites. For the first 9 years or so I was literally in the top 10 most prolific and beaten up poster on the internet calling this perverted emperor out for not actually having any clothes on.

This indeed has been a long shovel-out of a heavily manured bullshit load. But the USSC's decision this week FINALLY calls out the false premise. No, Christians do NOT have to be forced to abdicate their faith for BEHAVIORS they cannot abide by. Thanks for setting the premise straight USSC. Jesus it took long enough!

Christians do NOT have to be forced to abdicate their faith for BEHAVIORS they cannot abide by

That is not the decision the SC made; I wish they'd made a decision one way or the other, too, but they didn't.
Try reading a few pages of this thread, or the SC decision. Or a news article.

I did read the SC decision. Go back to page 39 and read my post there. The USSC "said" that LGBT was a behavior because they "said" a Christian could object to it and not serve them a "gay" wedding cake. What the USSC was saying is "some people for reasons of faith do not have to respect "gay" marriage". If regular people doing gay sex stuff had special protections, this would not be the Decision of the court. Imagine if a black couple walked into a bakery and the clerk said "we don't believe in ni**er marriage, so no cake for you!" The decision would've been QUITE different.

But since the premise was about BEHAVIORS/habitual lifestyles and not something actually protected, like race or faith, then the USSC found as it did.​

 

[rightwinger]

Because the 14th amendment requires equal protection under the law

You are in business......you don’t discriminate

There is no way a lower court can rule against a business who refuses to participate in a gay wedding anymore and also force the business to participate. The SCOTUS will always have to rule in favor of the business. So time for the gays to move on. There are plenty of businesses to help you out.

SCOTUS ruled 7-2 the Free exercise of religion is supreme over any PA law.

Court ruled 7-2 that they don’t want to deal with it

 

[Circe]

No shirt no shoes, no service.

I remember the good old days...

"No colors" signs on the doors of bars in the country, to avoid motorcycle gang fights.

Can places of business restrict ANY bad behavior these days? I'm not sure they can say "no shirt no shoes no service" anymore, or "no colors, no identifying costumes." Maybe any amount of illegal, gross behavior is supposed to be all right in the name of diversity. Consider the mobs fighting and shooting each other on Black Fridays.

 

[rightwinger]

Normal behavior is behavior that can be observed by the majority of a species. The 'hardwired drive to procreate" is normalized by that very need. Evolution is predicated upon this 'normalized' behavior.

I Myself don't care. Evolution will always attempt divergence and many behaviors lead to evolutionary dead ends or the extinction of a species. Homosexuality is one of these blind evolutionary paths and survives only because the 'normalized' behavior of humans to have relations with the opposite sex keeps us going. These are not agenda driven rules devised by people, but nature acting in accordance with natural laws.

I'm not so sure that's true. It seems clear to me the world is becoming grossly overpopulated, and worse and worse, fast. Presto, up pops legalized homosexuality, which is anti-natalist, against population growth.

I expect it's an instinctive reaction of an overcrowded species. Mate with unproductive partners, don't make more humans. Overcrowded species also do a lot more violence and wars in the case of people: killing each other also works.

I suppose homosexuality may be one of the Four Horsemen, like war and famine and disease that Malthus pointed out restrict endless and infinite reproduction: Death. It can be death, often is, what with AIDS.

Homosexuals never had children before, won’t have them now
Nothing will change

 

[Silhouette]

Court ruled 7-2 that they don’t want to deal with it

Liar. That's the spin on the left. The New York Times also called the Decision "narrow". Yeah, since when is 7-2 "narrow"? That's more than twice the thumping of the minority opinion.

They dealt with it covertly. They said that they expect regular men and women who belong to the not-Constitutionally protected cult of LGBT that they must respect other people's moral objections to their habitual behaviors/lifestyles. And they did this because they checked the US Constitution (it's in their job description) and could not find any protections for deviant sex behaviors-as-identity.

They dealt with it. Their Opinion will be cited in future cases. They set a precedent.

 

[LOki]

Well, there goes the neighborhood.

Now Jewish bakeries can refuse to bake cakes commissioned by skinheads to celebrate Adolph Hitler's birthday.

Where's the justice in that? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Silhouette]

Here's the headline from the lion of the liberal journalism spin-machine: In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple

It was 7-2 for fuck's sake. And in 2008 related-news: "a majority of Californians support gay marriage. Prop 8 predicted to be defeated in a landslide".

 

[Silhouette]

Well, there goes the neighborhood.

Now Jewish bakeries can refuse to bake cakes commissioned by skinheads to celebrate Adolph Hitler's birthday.

Where's the justice in that? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Or as Chris L hilariously put it on the only thread allowed on this subject in the much-viewed "politics" column: BTW, when will USMB mods un-dungeon this thread to where more people will view it? Nice trick.

If I want bacon, should Muslims be forced to cook it up for me? Of course! It's bacon! Your rights end where my rights to bacon begin. ​

 

[Jarlaxle]

I hope so. People have a right to be bigots if they wish.
PA laws are fascist bullshit.

As long as PA laws are gone for ALL instances. All instances.

Naah, you don't actually believe that.

It used to be that way, I can remember. These "serve all, no matter how disruptive and despicable" laws are very recent. Used to be you could limit sales of housing, rentals, hotels, restaurants, everything. You took a hit on income by not allowing some customers, maybe, but gained a lot in respectability and safety.

I want that back. That freedom was a lot better, and put the burden where it belongs: on the customer to act right. Be civilized.

I'm sorry, but I wasn't actually addressing you.

 

[BookShaka]

So they can get a wedding cake.

This whole situation is ridiculous. The gay couple didn’t HAVE to go to that bakery to get a cake.

Why should they have to find a bakery that doesn’t discriminate?

 

[Silhouette]

So they can get a wedding cake.

Not from a Christian who objects.

When will the probation period for this thread being dungeoned here at the low-view forum be up? When will its title be allowed in politics or current events?

 

[Silhouette]

Mission accomplished. Comments on this thread have slowed down to nothing. Way to go USMB.

 

[dblack]

The Supreme Court had a chance to set a precedent

Instead, they punted

That's the hallmark of the Roberts Court.

 

[Flopper]

We need to tell the queers to just shut the fuck up. Nobody needs to be made to accept that vile lifestyle. Not in a country where we suppose to have Liberty.

In American a person is entitled to live any lifestyle they choose providing it's legal. How gays lead their life is up to them. No one says you have to associate with gays, go to gay bars, watch gay movies or read gay books. What they do behind closed doors is their business not yours just as what you do is your business.

Agreed. Which is why gay people should not be allowed to impose their lifestyle on others. Bakers as a for instance.

Buying a cake does not imposes the buyer's lifestyle on the seller. I doubt selling a wedding cake to a gay couple would result in contracting their gayness or exposure to homosexual sex.

 

[westwall]

We need to tell the queers to just shut the fuck up. Nobody needs to be made to accept that vile lifestyle. Not in a country where we suppose to have Liberty.

In American a person is entitled to live any lifestyle they choose providing it's legal. How gays lead their life is up to them. No one says you have to associate with gays, go to gay bars, watch gay movies or read gay books. What they do behind closed doors is their business not yours just as what you do is your business.

Agreed. Which is why gay people should not be allowed to impose their lifestyle on others. Bakers as a for instance.

Buying a cake does not imposes the buyer's lifestyle on the seller. I doubt selling a wedding cake to a gay couple would result in contracting their gayness or exposure to homosexual sex.

It does if you require him to put his artistic talent into it.

 

[Flopper]

We need to tell the queers to just shut the fuck up. Nobody needs to be made to accept that vile lifestyle. Not in a country where we suppose to have Liberty.

In American a person is entitled to live any lifestyle they choose providing it's legal. How gays lead their life is up to them. No one says you have to associate with gays, go to gay bars, watch gay movies or read gay books. What they do behind closed doors is their business not yours just as what you do is your business.

Agreed. Which is why gay people should not be allowed to impose their lifestyle on others. Bakers as a for instance.

Buying a cake does not imposes the buyer's lifestyle on the seller. I doubt selling a wedding cake to a gay couple would result in contracting their gayness or exposure to homosexual sex.

It does if you require him to put his artistic talent into it.

So that's going to make the baker gay or cause him to have evil homosexual thoughts, go home and watch gay porn or go to a gay bar.

 

[Leo123]

We need to tell the queers to just shut the fuck up. Nobody needs to be made to accept that vile lifestyle. Not in a country where we suppose to have Liberty.

In American a person is entitled to live any lifestyle they choose providing it's legal. How gays lead their life is up to them. No one says you have to associate with gays, go to gay bars, watch gay movies or read gay books. What they do behind closed doors is their business not yours just as what you do is your business.

Agreed. Which is why gay people should not be allowed to impose their lifestyle on others. Bakers as a for instance.

Buying a cake does not imposes the buyer's lifestyle on the seller. I doubt selling a wedding cake to a gay couple would result in contracting their gayness or exposure to homosexual sex.

Correct, if the gay couple just bought a pre-made cake it would have been no problem. They wanted the cake makers to participate which they could not do because of their religious beliefs.

 

[Leo123]

We need to tell the queers to just shut the fuck up. Nobody needs to be made to accept that vile lifestyle. Not in a country where we suppose to have Liberty.

In American a person is entitled to live any lifestyle they choose providing it's legal. How gays lead their life is up to them. No one says you have to associate with gays, go to gay bars, watch gay movies or read gay books. What they do behind closed doors is their business not yours just as what you do is your business.

Agreed. Which is why gay people should not be allowed to impose their lifestyle on others. Bakers as a for instance.

Buying a cake does not imposes the buyer's lifestyle on the seller. I doubt selling a wedding cake to a gay couple would result in contracting their gayness or exposure to homosexual sex.

It does if you require him to put his artistic talent into it.

So that's going to make the baker gay or cause him to have evil homosexual thoughts, go home and watch gay porn or go to a gay bar.

Not the point.

 

[westwall]

We need to tell the queers to just shut the fuck up. Nobody needs to be made to accept that vile lifestyle. Not in a country where we suppose to have Liberty.

In American a person is entitled to live any lifestyle they choose providing it's legal. How gays lead their life is up to them. No one says you have to associate with gays, go to gay bars, watch gay movies or read gay books. What they do behind closed doors is their business not yours just as what you do is your business.

Agreed. Which is why gay people should not be allowed to impose their lifestyle on others. Bakers as a for instance.

Buying a cake does not imposes the buyer's lifestyle on the seller. I doubt selling a wedding cake to a gay couple would result in contracting their gayness or exposure to homosexual sex.

It does if you require him to put his artistic talent into it.

So that's going to make the baker gay or cause him to have evil homosexual thoughts, go home and watch gay porn or go to a gay bar.

Stop having temper tantrums. That is not the point and you know it.

 

[Silhouette]

Hey a little theater! "Looks" like people actually know this topic exists now! (when are you going to move it to politics? Before or after its conspicuous absence becomes an embarrassment for USMB?)